Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xf

Xf
I doubt if there's any more to be said on this subject. Deb 18:06, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning toward keep. This would be an interesting concept if it weren't confined to a single university (apparently).  Could be merged with grade (education), a nonexistent article on academic misconduct, or plagiarism. --MarkSweep 22:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it´s funny that the students who got Fs the regular way wish to distance themselves from those who got Fs for cheating. You know, because you´re so much better if you WORKED for that failing grade.  XF for unimportance.  delete  --Handel 22:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If you cheated, that's a strike against your personal character that could come back to haunt you--not the sort of thing you'd want known. If you just got a regular F, it just means you had some problems that semester, or that's what you can tell people--it's much easier to justify. Anyway, delete but mention on the university page; until there's proof that this concept is more widespread, doesn't deserve its own article or mention in the "grade" article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:43, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge without redirect to one of the destinations suggested by MarkSweep. Cdc 00:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I may be going against the flow here, but I say keep. The interesting nature of the concept seems to outweigh the fact that it's only present at one university. The information is verfiable (the proposal is on the University's site, and it should be mentioned in the next printing of their catalog too), and the article, while a stub, is fairly well written. - RedWordSmith 23:46, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Trivia. Merge with Wichita State University. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk]] 00:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep because it's an interesting phenomenon. It might be or become more widespread, so this information shouldn't be lost Kappa 00:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is inaccurate, though. According to http://www.uwrf.edu/esis/NonAttendanceGradeReporting.htm, XF is given as the failing grade for non-attendance, to differentiate for the purposes of Title IV funding (whatever that is.) --jpgordon{gab} 00:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Note that many other universities have distinct Fail / Fail Absent grades. In Australia though it is often called FA, not XF. You get an F if you fail your final exam, but you get an FA if you don't show up for your final exam. Really, this sort of info belongs in a general article on university grading practices.
 * That could be added at the bottom of the article. --Idont Havaname 00:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's for a different university? o_O - RedWordSmith 01:59, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Not exclusive to Wichita. The University System of Maryland uses it too (I know that because I'm a UM student), and I would think it is in use elsewhere too. Honor pledges and permanent consequences on students for cheating/plagiarizing/facilitating have become pretty popular in the last few years. I certainly think that there should be an article on academic misconduct or academic dishonesty, since it is a big problem. --Idont Havaname 00:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite an interesting article indeed. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If verified, merge to Wichita State University. If it's in use elsewhere, then merge it to the other places, too.  No one is going to look up A to see the grade explained, nor WF nor Inc.  The innovation of a scarlet letter on the student's transcript is interesting, but not in isolation.  In isolation, the information is lost.  Those who say that they're all about saving information ought to give some thought to the usefulness of the information.  Geogre 04:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Indeed, in A, we find In education, a grade of A typically represents the highest score that students can achieve. (sometimes coupled with a plus/minus sign - i.e., A+ or A-, or a number - e.g., A1)'. --jpgordon{gab} 04:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (sigh) Duplicate information, then.  I suppose I'm not surprised, although I ought to be.  (We have the articles on grading systems.)  I still think this is so far from a uniform grade that it should be merged where appropriate, rather than given an article.  If it is a national (US) grade, then it should be merged into the grading system article.  At any rate, the claim that it was developed at Wichita State U. seems to be wrong, and so the whole slant of the present article would have to be ripped up.  Geogre 15:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into some article on grading. Title is terrible, concept is notable. --Improv 06:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Cookiemobsta 06:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Extreme keep, encyclopedic and notable. Jpgordon makes a compelling argument as well.  &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move to XF (two capital letters). With the concern over academic plagiarism at an all-time high, it is reasonable to foresee that the XF grade will be adopted at universities throughout the United States. Robert Happelberg 16:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as short article. their should also be article about academic dishonesty, but simply redirecting XF to academic dishonesty would be confusing. Numerao 23:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Meelar, by the way. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:26, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it was only one university, I'd say merge. - Lifefeed 15:00, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - learned something from reading it. Do move to XF.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or extend into an article the US grade system. Notice how none of the other grades have their own articles, and how one grade can have different meanings in different countries. --Regebro 11:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anton Mravcek 20:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)